改良髋前外侧入路与髋外侧入路治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折疗效比较

目的比较老年股骨粗隆间骨折行改良髋前外侧入路与常规髋外侧入路的疗效。方法回顾性分析2008年2月-2010年2月收治的61例老年股骨粗隆间骨折患者临床资料,其中34例采用经改良髋关节前外侧弧形切口加动力髋螺钉(dynamic hip screw,DHS)固定(改良组),27例采用常规髋外侧切口加DHS固定(常规组)。两组患者性别、年龄、致伤原因、Evans分型、合并症、受伤至入院时间、髋关节Harris评分等一般资料比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),具有可比性。结果两组患者均顺利完成手术。改良组手术时间、术中出血量、术中透视次数、引流量、住院时间及负重天数均显著少于常规组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。两组患者均获随访,随访时间12～24个月,平均18.7个月。患者骨折均获骨性愈合,改良组和常规组骨折愈合时间分别为(11.64±1.28)周和(12.29±1.12)周,比较差异无统计学意义(t=2.15,P=0.15)。术后3、6、12个月两组Harris评分均显著优于术前(P<0.05),术后各时间点间比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);改良组术后各时间点Harris评分均优于常规组(P<0.05)。两组切口感染、肢体短缩、髋内翻畸形愈合、主钉切出股骨头、内固定松动发生率比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但改良组总并发症发生率优于常规组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论采用改良髋前外侧入路手术治疗老年股骨粗隆间骨折,能达到充分暴露,并能减少肌肉损伤,降低手术风险,配合术后早期功能锻炼能尽快恢复髋关节功能。

EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON OF IMPROVED ANTEROLATERAL APPROACH AND LATERAL APPROACH IN TREATMENT OF SENILE INTERTROCHANTERIC FRACTURE

Objective To compare the effectiveness between improved anterolateral approach and lateral approach in the treatment of senile intertrochanteric fracture. Methods The clinical data were retrospectively analyzed, from 61 patients with senile intertrochanteric fracture treated between February 2008 and February 2010. Of 61 patients, 34 patients underwent improved anterolateral approach combined with fixation of dynamic hip screw (improved group), and 27 patients underwent conventional lateral approach combined with fixation of dynamic hip screw (conventional group). There was no significant difference in gender, age, injury cause, Evans classification, comorbidities, disease duration, or Harris hip scores between 2 groups (P > 0.05). Results The operation was successfully completed in all patients. The operation time, blood loss, perspective frequency during operation, drainage volume, hospitalization days, and out-of-bed time in the improved group were significantly less than those in the conventional group (P < 0.05). All patients were followed up 12-24 months (mean, 18.7 months). Bone union was achieved in both groups; the fracture healing time was (11.64 ± 1.28) weeks in the improved group and was (12.29 ± 1.12) weeks in the conventional group, showing no significant difference (t=2.15, P=0.15). Harris hip scores at 3, 6, and 12 months were significantly better than preoperative scores in 2 groups (P < 0.05), and significant differences were found among different time points after operation in 2 groups (P < 0.05), between 2 groups after operation (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the incidence of incision infection, limb shortening, coax vara, internal fixation loosening, main screw cutting-out from femoral head between 2 groups (P > 0.05), but the incidence of total complications in the improved group was significantly lower than that in the conventional group (P < 0.05). Conclusion Compared with conventional lateral approach, improved anterolateral approach has the advantages of sufficient exposure, reducing muscle damage and surgical risk in treating intertrochanteric fracture. Operating treatment of improved anterolateral approach combined with early rehabilitation after surgery can recover hip joint function as quickly as possible.